ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

L. W.

Appellant

-and-

TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Tribunal Members: Eva Nichols, Chair

Derryn Gill, Member

Uma Madan, Member

Date: March 26, 2008

Citation: 2008 ONSET 1

Indexed as: L. W. v. Toronto District School Board

ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

File #2007-04 (a)

IN THE MATTER OF the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, as amended, ss. 57(3),

IN THE MATTER OF Ontario Regulation 181/98,

AND IN THE MATTER OF the minor child born in 1998

BETWEEN

Ms. L. W., Appellant

-and-

The Toronto District School Board, Respondent

Tribunal Members:

Eva Nichols Chair

Derryn Gill Member

Uma Madan Member

Appearances:

L. W. Parent

Reva Schafer Toronto Family Network, Representative/Advocate

Paul Howard Counsel for the Toronto District School Board (TDSB)

Sheila MacKinnon Counsel for the TDSB

Karen Forbes System Superintendent, Special Education, TDSB

Stephen Hopkins Principal, TDSB

Douglas Harrison Counsel for Ms. Sheila Ward, Stikeman Elliott LLP

Louise Sibbald Secretary

The preliminary hearing was held on February 20, March 18 and March 19, 2008 in Toronto, Ontario.

INTRODUCTION

The appellant brought a series of motions at the outset of the hearing of this appeal.

In one of the motions she asked the Tribunal, among other matters, to order the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for her child, whose placement is at issue in this appeal. This interim decision deals only with that issue.

On February 20, 2008, the Tribunal heard arguments from both parties on the threshold issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make the order requested. On February 25, 2008, the Tribunal and the appellant received Mr. Howard’s written notes for the oral arguments he presented on February 20, 2008. The appellant was given the opportunity to prepare reply submissions, in writing, by March 12, 2008. In response to the appellant’s request, this time line was extended to March 25, 2008. The appellant’s reply submissions were received by the Tribunal on March 19, 2008.

The Tribunal has considered both the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Tribunal has decided to issue its decision on this matter in order to resolve the outstanding item of issuing a summons to a witness.

DECISION

The appellant’s motion is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the TDSB to provide legal representation for the appellant’s child.

Reasons for the decision will be released at a later date, together with the Tribunal’s decisions on the remaining parts of the legal counsel motion (appellant’s motion #4) and all other preliminary motions.

Eva Nichols, Chair

March 26, 2008